Moonbat + Amazongate = Prize Pillock

There's only one thing more satisfying than being right. That's when a shrill buffoon you utterly despise dedicates an entire column in a newspaper you loathe to accusing you of being wrong, working himself up into an almost masturbatory lather of slobbering indignation, macheting himself to ever greater heights of ecstatic fervour like some Shi'ite penitent during Ashura, giggling at his jokes, crowing at his own cleverness, earning all sorts of smarmy plaudits from his coterie of sorry eco-fascist brown-nosers – and it turns out, after all that, you're still entirely right and the buffoon – let's call him Moonbat – has emerged looking an even bigger prat than ever.

I love you George Moonbat, no really I do. You've just made my weekend.

Don't think George loves me, though. There's a clue in this par here:

In the Telegraph, James Delingpole, who seldom misses an opportunity to make an idiot of himself, announced that these revelations meant:

"AGW [anthropogenic global warming] theory is toast. So's Dr Rajendra Pachauri. So's the Stern review. So's the credibility of the IPCC."In reality, as we will see, it's Delingpole's beliefs on climate change that the story has reduced to toast.

Anyway, let me explain what this is all about. Someone complained to the Press Complaints Commission about a story Jonathan Leake had written in the Sunday Times about Amazongate. The story concerned yet another piece of dodgy science from that supposed gold standard of climate expertise – the IPCC – which had quoted some statistics about the Amazon's sensitivity to climate change which were a) inaccurate b) not peer-reviewed c) had been taken from a World Wildlife Fund press release. For some bizarre reason, the Sunday Times decided not to stand up to the Press Complaints Commission – despite the fact that the substance of the story was entirely correct. This, in turn, has given greenies like Monbiot an excuse to prance up and down like Muffin the Mule on angel dust under the insane delusion that this somehow demolishes the entire sceptics' case against AGW. Which, it doesn't.

The reason I can't be bothered to repeat them myself is that I wrote up all these nuances back in January here and here. In the second story, I explain how the great North got his original story slightly wrong but how on closer examination the story turned out to have been even more damning to the IPCC's credibility than we'd previously suspected. Monbiot clearly missed this subtlety, tee hee. Otherwise he wouldn't be looking such a prize pillock now.